10 Reasons Why Today’s GOP Would Never Support the True Ronald Reagan

            Over the years following the end of his presidency, Ronald Reagan’s name has gained an almost mythical reverence among many modern Conservatives.  Yet, given the GOP’s dramatic shift to the right in recent years, the fact is that a comparative moderate like Reagan would find it very difficult to gain support from contemporary Republicans.  How could today’s Conservatives ever stand behind a man who was once a registered Democrat, the president of a union, and an admirer of FDR?  Could they support someone who advocated gun control, increased the size of government, and preferred diplomacy over military action?

The answer to these questions appears obvious.  Despite their unflagging admiration for him, were the “Conservative patron saint” to run for president today, he would most likely be met with hate, scorn and humiliation.

            Here are 10 reasons why today’s GOP would shun the true Ronald Reagan:

1) He was originally a Liberal

Just as his father was a strong supporter of the Democratic party, so too was the younger Ronald Reagan.  For 30 years, from 1932 to 1962, Reagan was a registered Democrat and cast his first votes for liberal candidates.  Later in life, he additionally worked on a number of Democratic campaigns, including that of Helen Douglas in her failed senate race against Richard Nixon.

Only in the 50s, when Reagan began dating a Republican actress, did his views begin to become more Conservative.  This trend continued as he started working for GE, where he gradually began to adopt the views of his Conservative employers.  However, it was not until 1962 that he finally switched parties and declared himself a Republican. [1]

2) Early in his life, he was a strong supporter of New Deal policies and admired FDR even in his later years

            Reagan cast his first vote for president in 1932, supporting Franklin Roosevelt.  Thereafter, he was an outspoken supporter of FDR’s policies, and voted for Roosevelt in each of the following three elections.

            Even after World War II and Roosevelt’s death, Reagan, characterizing himself as “a New Dealer to the core”, continued to support and admire the man.

Once recounting his beliefs from that period of his life, Reagan recalled that:

I thought government could solve all our postwar problems just as it had ended the Depression and won the war. I didn’t trust big business. I thought government, not private companies, should own our big public utilities; if there wasn’t enough housing to shelter the American people, I thought government should build it; if we needed better medical care, the answer was socialized medicine. [1]

            However, even as Reagan’s views began to drastically change over the years, it seems that ‘the Gipper’ still harbored a soft spot for FDR.  As president, Reagan frequently mentioned Roosevelt in his speeches, and twice spoke at events honoring the former leader. [2]

            Even though he disagreed vehemently with Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society legislation, Reagan appears to have seen a difference between these policies and the New Deal.  The evening after giving a speech honoring Roosevelt, Reagan commented in his diary that “The press is dying to paint me as now trying to undo the New Deal. I remind them I voted for FDR four times. I’m trying to undo the ‘Great Society.’ It was LBJ’s war on poverty that led to our present mess.” [3]

Reagan also took time during one of his speeches to explain how the New Deal was different from the Great Society, detailing why he preferred one over the other:

  The New Deal gave cash to the poor, but the Great Society failed to target assistance to the truly needy and made government the instrument of vast transfer payments, erecting huge bureaucracies to manage hundreds of social programs.  The Great Society failed in two crucial aspects: It fostered dependence on government subsidies, and it made the transfer of money from Washington bureaucrats to those in need seem like a mission impossible.

I was a New Deal Democrat. And I still believe, today, that there is only one compassionate, sensible, and effective policy for Federal assistance: We must focus domestic spending on the poor and bypass the bureaucracies by giving assistance directly to those who need it.

            Comparing these statements to the rhetoric of the Tea Party and the modern Right-wing, Reagan appears more like a moderate centrist than the Conservative ideologue that Republicans have fashioned him to be.  For many Conservatives who still admire him today, it seems that they have separated this aspect of Reagan’s personality from the vision of him contained within their imaginations.

3) He was an active member, and then president, of a union

            Reagan attended his first board meeting with the Screen Actors Guild in mid-1941.  However, his involvement with the union was interrupted a little over a year later as he joined the military during World War II.  Nevertheless, after Reagan had completed his service in 1946, he once again resumed his place within the SAG.  There, less than a year later, he was then elected third vice-president.

            However, On March 10, 1947, just six months later, Reagan was elected president of the SAG.  From there, he would then go onto serve for another six terms and would lead the SAG through many tumultuous times, including the Hollywood Blacklist era, the House Committee on Un-American  Activities hearings, and the SAG’s first three strikes.  He would also meet his future wife through the SAG, actress Nancy Davis.  Reagan eventually resigned his presidency in 1960 before moving on in his career. [4]

            As Republicans continue their bald-faced attacks on workers unions, one has to wonder what Reagan’s modern counterparts would think should they realize that he, too, was once an active member of such an organization.  Were Reagan to run against a Tea Partier today, how long do you think it would be before that attack ads, featuring his former left leanings, his admiration of FDR, and his former union membership, would start to air?  Today, it seems hard to imagine a Republican winning an election, especially a primary, with such a history.

Yet, even assuming that some Conservatives could forgive him of these previous “offenses”, Reagan would likely have a much harder time escaping the legacy left behind by his surprisingly Liberal record.

Let us take a closer look.

4) His tax record was not ‘Conservative enough’

            Following his inauguration as governor of California, Reagan almost immediately raised taxes to reduce the state deficit.  These measures, coupled with spending cuts, succeeded in balancing California’s budget and prevented the state from plunging into a fiscal crisis.

Later, as president, Reagan lowered taxes only twice: once in 1981, and then again 1986.  However, this second tax cut, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA), was actually surprisingly progressive in nature.  Although it lowered taxes on the very rich from 50% to 28% and increased the bottom tax bracket to 15% from 11%, the bill imposed the largest-ever corporate tax increase and closed a number loopholes, thus raising the effective corporate tax rate even further.

Additionally, the TRA also greatly expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which acted to significantly reduce the tax burden on many of the working poor.  The EITC has since proven itself one of the most powerful tools to reduce poverty.  However, Conservatives have recently begun to support removing these measures so that the poor are once again made to “pay their fair share”.

Furthermore, Reagan raised taxes, in one form or another, eleven times during his presidency: at least once every year from 1981 to 1987.  These included closing additional loopholes for businesses, a number of tax hikes to fund Social Security (particularly for those with high incomes), the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, and the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA) (otherwise known as the “greatest peacetime tax hike in American History”). [5]

Reagan also frequently talked about reforming the tax code and removing loopholes.  In a lighthearted 1985 speech that now sounds eerily similar to recent speeches given by Barack Obama and other Democrats, Reagan addressed a group of Atlanta high school students and made clear his intention to crack down on tax dodgers.

In his words:

We’re going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that have allowed some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share.  In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary, and that's crazy. It's time we stopped it.

If our current tax structure were a TV show, it would either be Foul-ups, Bleeps and Blunders, or Gimme a Break. If it were a record album, it would be Gimme Shelter. If it were a movie, it would be Revenge of the Nerds or maybe Take the Money and Run. And if the IRS, Internal Revenue Service, ever wants a theme song, maybe they'll get Sting to do, ‘Every breath you take, every move you make, I'll be watching you.’ [6]

            Looking at the history here, it seems that Reagan was a man who understood compromise and valued pragmatism over idealism.  Although he advocated, and in many cases implemented, Conservative fiscal policies, he was also capable of recognizing when it was time to make a deal for the common good.

Compare these actions to those of his party members inhabiting Congress 40 years later, and you will see a sickening contrast.  Even in the face of adversity, when our country and her people need them the most, it seems that they have lost the ability to compromise and come together as the leaders of our nation.  Instead, they sit atop their hill, bickering and name-calling.

Would Reagan be proud?  I don’t think so.  Were he here today, Reagan would be among that diminishing group of Republicans still able to compromise and work together, even with members of the other party, to get things accomplished.  Yet, as entities such as FOX News continue their purge of moderate Republicans who “step out of line”, someone like Reagan likely wouldn’t last very long.  He wouldn’t be “obedient” enough.

5) Reagan presided over soaring deficits and a massive expansion of government

            Despite his campaign promises to balance the budget, cut spending, and shrink the size of government, deficits soared under Reagan and the federal payroll expanded immensely.  This, however, has largely been ignored by modern Conservatives as they clamor to praise Reagan and his policies.

Let’s take a closer look at some of the fiscal realities of Reagan’s tenure as president.

            First and foremost, Reagan did little to reduce expenditures, as he said he would.  In fact, federal spending increased, averaging out to about 22.6% of GDP during his years as president (compared to an overall average of 20.6% between 1971 and 2009).  As a result, public debt almost tripled, jumping from $712 billion, to over  $2 trillion between 1980 and 1989. [7]

Furthermore, those who say that Reagan shrank the size of government are badly mistaken.  On the contrary, the government instead added about 61,000 federal employees to the payroll during his years in office (In comparison, Carter and Clinton shrunk the federal government by 8,000 and 373,000 employees, respectively). [5]

           

While one could argue that Reagan’s spending increases might have been justified due to the threat posed by Soviet Russia and the subsequent military buildup, the claims that he actually reduced the size of government, and the deficit, are simply incorrect.  Although he did cut funding to a number of programs during the early stages of his presidency, this trend quickly stalled, and soon Reagan either created new programs to replace those removed or he was unable to negotiate further spending cuts with the Congress.

6) He wasn’t “hawkish” enough

Despite the rhetoric applauding his supposedly tough defense policies, Reagan wasn’t actually the steely-eyed hawk that he has been made out to be.  Although he greatly increased defense spending and challenged the Soviet Union, compared to Bush Sr., Bush Jr., Clinton or even Obama, Reagan was comparatively skittish when it came to actually committing the military to any kind of conflict.

            In reality, Reagan only presided over two relatively minor wars: the two-day invasion of Grenada (whose army totaled about 600 men), and the bombing of Libya.  Compared to Bush Sr., who launched ground operations in Panama and Somalia, as well as the Gulf War, or Clinton, who launched air campaigns in Bosnia, Iraq and Kosovo (all of which were more significant than the Libyan bombing), Reagan’s record seems positively tame. [8]

Even comparing his defense policies to those of Obama, who has responsibly managed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, authorized the bombing of Libya, utilized drones to great effect, committed Special Forces units to successfully fight our enemies, and authorized numerous effective airstrikes; one has to conclude that the idea of Reagan being “exceptionally” tough when it comes to the military is laughable, at best.

            Ultimately, Reagan’s foreign policy strength lay in his diplomatic abilities, as well as the threatening might of our military.  After studying him, it is obvious that he detested the idea of war, and was willing to do almost anything that he could to avoid it.

Even as Conservatives accuse Obama of being weak because he signed a nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia, one has to wonder what Reagan would think of this.  He too, after all, signed such treaties and abhorred the idea of a nuclear war.  Would Reagan not agree with Obama here?

7) He supported gun control

Although Second Amendment rights were a strong element of his election campaigns, in action, Reagan was not the gun lovin’ Conservative that many remember him as.  Instead, he took a very common sense approach when it came to gun control.  Like many current Republicans (and most Democrats), Reagan respected people’s basic rights, yet realized that some gun regulation is necessary for a society to function safely.

As governor of California, Reagan signed the Mulford Act, which, at the time, was the most restrictive gun control law ever passed in the state.  In addition to imposing a 15-day waiting period on people wishing to purchase guns, the bill also made it illegal to carry loaded firearms on the street, in public spaces, or in one’s vehicle. [9]

After his presidency, Reagan also backed several very important pieces of gun control legislation.

In a 1991 op-ed, Reagan explained the reasons why he strongly supported the Brady Bill (so named after his press secretary, James S. Brady, who was badly wounded in the attempt on Reagan’s life), and why he believed that more stringent gun regulations would benefit the nation.

In his words “[concerning the assassination attempt] This nightmare might never have happened if legislation that is before Congress now -- the Brady bill -- had been law back in 1981”

Reagan then went on to explain in more detail why he supported the bill, clarifying, among other things, the number of lives that could saved if it were passed.  As Reagan argued “This level of violence must be stopped. Sarah and Jim Brady are working hard to do that, and I say more power to them.” [10]

Additionally, Reagan also lent key support to the 1994 assault weapons ban, which only passed the House by two votes.  At least two members credited Reagan’s encouragement as the deciding factor determining their “yea” votes.

Looking at his record, it is clear that were Reagan to run for office today, he, like many other Republican moderates, would likely be crucified by interest groups such as the NRA.  Is it any wonder that both Republican and Democratic politicians have abandoned any attempt to impose new gun regulations, no matter how potentially beneficial?  At what point did common sense and pragmatism become such punishable sins in the eyes of the far Right?

8) He granted amnesty to 2.9 million illegal immigrants

            In 1986, Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), which put into place many measures designed to stem the tide of illegal immigrants entering the country.

Although the bill was touted as a crackdown on illegal immigration, it largely failed at this purpose due to the lack of a sufficient enforcement mechanism.  However, despite this, the bill did create a way for many illegal immigrants to finally pursue full citizenship, eventually allowing 2.9 million of them to become fully fledged Americans.

In Reagan’s own words:

We have consistently supported a legalization program which is both generous to the alien and fair to the countless thousands of people throughout the world who seek legally to come to America. The legalization provisions in this act will go far to improve the lives of a class of individuals who now must hide in the shadows, without access to many of the benefits of a free and open society. Very soon many of these men and women will be able to step into the sunlight and, ultimately, if they choose, they may become Americans. [11]

It seems that Reagan, as well as other Republicans of the era, understood the importance of providing a way for illegal immigrants to come forth and become true citizens.  As stated by Republican Congressman Allen Simpson, “[concerning the IRCA] It's not perfect, but 2.9 million people came forward. If you can bring one person out of an exploited relationship, that's good enough for me."

Furthermore, in a 1984 presidential debate with Walter Mondale, Reagan explained that "I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally.” [12]

Now, however, with their fervent crackdowns on illegal immigrants, it seems that many modern Republicans have lost this ability for empathy.  Rather than looking back on the mistakes made by Reagan’s previous attempts to fix this problem and working to produce a workable solution that could potentially benefit everyone, many Conservatives have instead chosen an emotionally charged path of persecution and vengeance.  In a world where the word “amnesty” is an obscenity, and cooperation is a pipe dream, how can we ever truly expect to find answers to such urgent problems?

9) He once legalized abortion

In 1967, as governor of California, Reagan signed the Therapeutic Abortion Act, which was designed to cut the number of dangerous backroom abortions by legalizing the procedure. [13]

Although, to be fair, Reagan later regretted this decision, the fact still remains that were he to run today with such a mark on his record, he would have a very hard time convincing the modern Republican party to embrace him.  Certainly, any Conservative candidate running against him would likely take advantage of this past action, utilizing the party’s now unforgiving nature to their advantage.

10) Reagan was against torture

            Like John McCain, who obstinately refused to support torture despite calls from his party members otherwise, Reagan, too, recognized the barbarity of such practices and chose to reject them.  Yet, with all the excuses made for the Bush administration when it was found out that the military was torturing prisoners of war, one might never have guessed that the “Conservative idol” was opposed to such acts.  However, in reading his signing statement on the U.N. Convention Against Torture, it seems that there can be little doubt as to Reagan’s views on the matter.

            From the signing statement:

The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention . It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.

The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called 'universal jurisdiction.' Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution. [14]

            It is common knowledge that the arena of American politics has shifted toward the right over the last decades.  However, the rate at which the GOP has lurched away from the center is startling.  Now, after only a little over twenty years, what used to be the Republican party during Reagan’s era now looks almost unrecognizable when compared to the modern GOP.  Simply taking into account many Republicans’ general distaste for Mitt Romney, who is in many ways more Conservative than Reagan, can tell you as much. 

            Although Reagan was, most definitely, a Conservative man, the point to which his image has been altered to fit the contemporary ideology is astounding.  Yet, is it much of a surprise?  For those who can profess to live by the word of Jesus Christ, then turn around and deny aid to the poor, persecute those of other religions, defend the rich, deny equal rights to homosexuals and support war, it seems little wonder that they could similarly change their perception of Reagan’s legacy to fit their beliefs.  Rather than envisioning him as he was, they have distorted Ronald Reagan’s name and turned it into a platform with which to represent all things Conservative.

Whether truth will ever be recognized and this state of affairs ended, no one can know.  However, one thing can be certain: as of now, the man and the myth have become two different things.

[1] Reagan, Ronald. An American Life: The Autobiography. Simon & Schuster.  New York, 1990.  Print. June16, 2012

[2] Snyder, Allen. Ronald Reagan on Franklin Roosevelt: The Significance of Style. Firstprinciplesjournal. First Principles ISI Web Journal. Aug. 20, 2008. Web. June 16, 2012.

[3] Reagan, Ronald. The Reagan Diaries. Brinkley, Douglas. Harper. New York. 2007. Print.  June 16, 2012.

[4] Ronald Reagan. Sag.org. Screen Actors Guild. 2012. Web. June 16, 2012.

[5] Green, Joshua. Reagan’s Liberal Legacy. Washingtonmonthly.com. Washington Monthly. Feb. 2003. Web. June 16, 2012.

[6] Ronald Reagan understood "to make a deal he would have to propose both spending cuts and tax increases," said Obama. Politifact.com. Politifact. Apr. 3, 2012. Web. June 16, 2012.

[7] BUDGET AND ECONOMIC OUTLOOK: HISTORICAL BUDGET DATA. Cbo.gov. Congressional Budget Office. Jan. 2011. Web. June 16, 2012.

[8] Beinart, Peter. Think Again: Ronald Reagan. Foreignpolicy.com. Foreign Policy Magazine. Aug. 2010. Web. June 16, 2012.

[9] The Mulford Act. CAL. PEN. CODE § 12031 : California Code - Section 12031. 1967. Web. June 16, 2012.

[10] Reagan, Ronald. Why I’m for the Brady Bill. Nytimes.com. New York Times. Mar. 29, 1991. Web. June 16, 2012.

[11] Reagan, Ronald. Statement on Signing the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. Nov. 6, 1986. Web. June 16, 2012.

[12] A Reagan Legacy: Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants. Npr.org. National Public Radio. Jul. 4, 2010. Web. June 16, 2012.

[13] Crosby, Margaret. A Contemporary Abortion Law for California. ACLU Newsroom. ACLU of Northern California. Apr. 23, 2002. Web. June 16, 2012.

[14] U.S. Signs U.N. Convention Against Torture. Findarticles.com. CBS Interactive. 2011. Web. June 16, 2012.

75 of Barack Obama’s Achievements That You Likely Haven’t Heard About

All too often, people (including many Democrats) fail to realize and acknowledge all that president Barack Obama has done for this country.  They call him a do-nothing president, yet the fact is that this man has accomplished more during the three short years of his leadership than a majority of us could hope to achieve in a lifetime.  Most people have at least a basic idea of what Obama has done to save the economy, to reform healthcare, to ensure equal rights, and to protect this country, even if they don’t particularly agree with him.  However, how many of these people are also aware of everything else which he has accomplished?  Too much of what the president has done seems to have either gone by unnoticed or has been forgotten.  It is time that an end were put to this sorry state of affairs.

Here are 75 of our president’s accomplishments which deserve more recognition:

1)   Provided intelligence and non-combatant personnel to aid in the fight against the Lord’s Resistance Army, before Joseph Kony was a nationally known figure.

2)   Mandated that better body armor be provided to U.S. soldiers.

3)   Halted the Bush-era policy of awarding “no-bid” defense contracts.

4)   Signed the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, which put two million acres of wilderness under federal protection, established the National Landscape Conservation System, designates three new National Conservation Areas, adds thousands of miles to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System as well as to the National Trails System, provides funds to the National Institute of Health to advance paralysis research, and creates a multitude of programs, including the Wolf Livestock Loss Demonstration Project, three new oceanic research studies, fifteen new water and endangered fish projects, and a number of historical preservations initiatives., among many, many other things.

5)   Allocated $19 billion dollars through a stimulus measure to help implement an electronic medical record system, which will help to increase efficiency and reduce costs.

6)   As of March 18, 2010, the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act has funded 10,000 road projects, helped renovate 850 transit facilities, and provided for the purchase of around 12,000 busses, vans, and rail vehicles.  In addition, through the ARRA, $620 million has been allocated to preventative maintenance of our nation’s infrastructure.

7)   Signed the Serve America Act, which greatly expanded AmeriCorps and established five new service corps, including a Clean Energy Corps, an education Corps, a Healthy Futures Corps, designed to improve access to healthcare, a Veterans Corps, and an Opportunity Corps.  The Serve America Act also has provisions designed to greatly benefit low-income communities, enlist student volunteers, and to greatly expand the number of AmeriCorps programs (above and beyond the five listed above).  Overall, this bill has increased the number of nationwide volunteers from 75,000 to 250,000.

8)   Issued an executive order, creating the White House Council on Women and Girls.

9)   Signed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act: allowing the FDA to regulate tobacco for the first time in history, requiring tobacco companies to list all ingredients used in their products, baring free samples of tobacco products from being handed out, and disallowing the tobacco industry to use color advertisements, or to advertise near schools and sporting events.

10)   Appointed more openly gay officials to his administration than any other president – Now allows the State Department to offer same-sex benefits for employees.

11)   Increased funding for numerous education-related programs; made it easier and more affordable for students to acquire loans; authorized the construction of high-speed, broadband internet access for public schools; increased federal funds for student loans; opened up discussions for education reform with Congress (although many of these attempts have been stymied by Republicans); started the Race to the Top competitive grant program; initiated numerous jobs training programs for the unemployed, and increased funds to invest in technologies for schools.

12)   Instituted the National Alzheimer’s Project

13)   Overturned bans that prohibit funding to be given to international organizations which provide family planning services.

14)   Requested the largest amount of military aid for Israel in American history (has been steadily increasing aid above Bush-era levels.)

15)   Signed the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act.

16)   Strengthened the Endangered Species Act by removing a Bush-era policy designed to weaken it.

17)   Signed the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act, which is designed to eliminate waste and extra costs associated with purchases of large weapons systems by the Pentagon.

18)   Signed the Food Safety and Modernization Act, which is designed so that regulators and the FDA can shift their focus toward preventing food bourn illnesses, rather than just merely working to respond to contaminations, among other things.  This bill was created in response to numerous outbreaks of food-related illnesses during the 2000s.  It is considered the first broad piece of federal legislation aimed at addressing this issue since 1938.

19)   Banned texting for all commercial truck and bus drivers.

20)   Signed the Tribal Law and Order Act, which is designed to reduce violence against women in Native American communities.

21)   Signed the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act, which is designed to reduce the amount of money that the government looses due to accounting errors, waste, fraud, and scam artists.

22)   Signed the Social Truth in Caller ID Act, which cracks down on people disguising themselves under a false caller ID.

23)   Signed the North American Wetlands Conservation Act

24)   Enacted measures to lower the amount of lead contained in drinking water.

25)   Allocated stimulus money to states to prevent thousands of teachers, police officers, firefighters, etc., from being laid-off (note that many highly Conservative states attempted to refuse this stimulus money, putting politics before the jobs of many hard working Americans).

26)   Instituted a 35% tariff on Chinese tires, among other products.  Obama has been the first president in over 30 years to truly put pressure on China to cease illegal trading practices.

27)   Dismantled Bush-era restrictions limiting embryonic stem cell research.

28)   Increased the SCHIP program to cover healthcare for four million additional children – Signed the Children’s Health Insurance Reauthorization Act.

29)   Issued an executive order to establish new security guidelines aimed at reducing the risk of bioterrorism or the accidental release of chemical or biological contaminants.

30)   Allocated $2 billion dollars of stimulus money to the auto industry to help develop new battery technology which is expected to give American car manufacturers a competitive edge over foreign companies.

31)   Has continued working to advance the Hurricane Katrina recovery effort.

32)   Responded quickly to the disaster in Haiti: signing the Haiti Debt Relief and Earthquake Recovery Act, the Emergency Aid to American Survivors of the Haiti Earthquake Act, the Haiti Economic Lift Program Act, the Help Haiti Act, as well as coordinating with the international community to issue aid and personnel to help in the recovery effort.

33)   Provided non-lethal support to the Syrian people, including medical supplies and communication equipment.

34)   Issued extensive disaster relief aid to flood victims in the United States, particularly those in Mississippi and North Dakota.

35)   Responded effectively to the Swine Flu Epidemic: ordering federal labs to prioritize development of an H1N1 vaccine – Issued up to date disease prevention guidelines to the CDC.

36)   Expanded vaccination programs

37)   Used an executive order to create the Office of Urban Affairs, which is designed to help create and organize urban policy agendas across the United States, as well as to ensure that federal funds are efficiently spent in the highest impact areas, thus reducing waste and increasing effectiveness.

38)   Signed the Cash for Clunkers program, designed to stimulate auto sales and to remove outdated, inefficient, and dirty cars from the road.

39)   Signed a free trade agreement with Columbia, South Korea, and Panama, which is expected to create thousands of jobs in the coming future.

40)   Authorized the highest-ranking diplomatic mission to Myanmar in over half a century with the aim of opening up new markets and catalyzing reforms.

41)   Followed through on efforts to initiate a “wireless broadband revolution” in America.

42)   Signed a bill requiring power plants to begin producing 15% of their output from renewable resources.

43)   Enacted measures to require that government facilities be upgraded to save on energy costs - Issued executive orders enacting an initiative to curb greenhouse gas emissions in all federal operations.

44)   Limited lobbyists’ access to the White House – Enacted numerous measures to reduce the power that lobbyists wield over the government.

45)   Dismantled Bush-era restrictions on the accessibility of federal documents – Brought the U.S. government into a new era of transparency.

46)   Signed the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act.

47)   Greatly increased the use of drones and Special Forces units to successfully combat terrorist networks around the world.

48)   Shifted American military strategy away from large-scale, unilateral operations toward policies of “leading from behind” and “tough minded diplomacy”.

49)   Signed the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act.

50)   Established the Ronald Reagan Centennial Commission

51)   Created tax benefits for companies that insource – Eliminated many tax benefits for companies that outsource.

52)   Reversed the Bush-era policy of “hiding” certain programs by not listing them in the budget.  Bush and Reagan both did this so as to cover up certain expenditures, as well as to make it appear as though the government were spending less money than it actually was.

53)   Eased anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world by sitting down with leaders in the Middle East, addressing the Middle Eastern people in numerous speeches, and by using pragmatic foreign policy strategies.

54)   Mandated that FEMA once again report to the president.

55)   Instituted numerous measures designed to benefit small businesses.  Examples include allowing the federal government to issue loans to small businesses at reduced rates, reducing taxes for some small businesses, extending the Small Business Act, and signing the Small Business Investment Act as well as the Small Business jobs Act.

56)   Donated his Nobel Peace Prize money to charity.

57)   Instituted the e-Rulemaking Initiative, which allows the public to openly view and comment on federal laws and proposals.

58)   Increased the number of border patrol agents from 17,499 (four months before he was inaugurated) to 20, 745 agents as of April 9^th, 2011.

59)   Substantially increased funding to the Peace Corps.

60)   Has led numerous international efforts to curb pollution and greenhouse gas production.

61)   Spearheaded several initiatives to pursue further nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear arms reduction treaties.

62)   Supplied missile defense supports for Israel

63)   Signed the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, which mandates new nutrition standards and funds child nutrition and free lunch programs for public schools.

64)   Signed the Military Spouses Residency Relief Act

65)   Signed the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act

66)   Signed the International Adoption Simplification Act.

67)   Expanded the National Youth Service Program

68)   Signed the Special Agent Samuel Hicks Families of Fallen Heroes Act

69)   Signed the Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act

70)   Lifted the Bush-era policy of disallowing the media to list casualty reports or to air footage of caskets returning to America.

71)   Mandated that the Pentagon cover travel expenses for the immediate families of fallen soldiers should they wish to be present when the body arrives.

72)   Responded quickly to the tsunami in Japan, sending aid and personnel help in the recovery effort.

73)   Signed a bill prohibiting members of the federal government from participating in insider trading.

74)   Signed the Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act, which extends funding for the Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services Program and the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program for another five years.

75)   Took far less vacation time than any other recent president, besides possibly president Bill Clinton - Obama only took 26 days of vacation during his first term.

Obama Supports Gay Marriage – Let’s Help Him Win Reelection This November

            Barack Obama, on May 9^th, 2012, became the first United States president to openly support gay marriage.  Now, in the wake of this historic moment, it is time for each of us to do our part to ensure that this man is reelected to office.  We all know that the far-Right will do everything within their power to use this brave admission against Obama.  Now, more than ever, we must do all we can to show support for our president, and to fight the propaganda machine of hate.

            In the words of Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand,“The president's unequivocal support today in favor of all committed couples to marry the person they love is a watershed moment in American history that will provide the leadership needed to finally repeal DOMA and win the unfinished fight for equality for all Americans.”

Yet, even now, despite this momentous event, Conservatives are launching the first attacks against Obama based on his support of gay marriage.

"God is the author of marriage, and we will not let an activist politician like Barack Obama who is beholden to gay marriage activists for campaign financing to turn marriage into something political that can be redefined according to presidential whim," said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage.

And, from Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, "President Obama stuck a fork in himself today. He's done. He's toast,"

            We can expect to see many more such hateful criticisms as the year continues on.  Election campaigns, Conservative organizations, Right-wing religious groups, super PACs, and Republican party activists can all be expected to launch, fund, and publicize a vast wave of attacks against Obama.

            Unless we all do something to fight against these efforts to hurt the president, their goals of destabilizing him could come to fruition.  If Obama looses to Mitt Romney in November, we will have taken a step back away from marriage equality, and we will have lost a great catalyst for change.

            Just hours after Obama formally came out in support of same sex marriage, Romney, again, reiterated his opposition to it.

"I have the same view on marriage that I had when I was governor” Romney said, speaking at a campaign event.  “I believe marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman.  I have the same view I've had since, well, running for office."

Romney has also publically voiced support for a Constitutional amendment that would ban same sex marriage.  Were this change to be made, it would be the first time that our Constitution was amended to strip some Americans of equal rights.  To me, that idea is scary.  Is Romney really the kind of president that we want after November?  Are we prepared to let our nation take such a step back?

In the last two decades, a revolution has been occurring as more and more Americans wake up and realize that all people deserve equal rights.  Just a couple of years ago, most Americans were against gay marriage.  Yet, we’ve begun to see the tide turn as, in the last year, a small and growing majority of Americans voice their support for marriage equality.

In order to keep this trend going, we must work to sustain its momentum.  The more people who come out in support of same sex marriage, the easier it will be for others to see why we need equal rights for all citizens.  When people like Obama and Joe Biden come out and stand behind such issues, it adds a tremendous boost to the efforts of those working for gay rights.

Right now, you and I, as well as many, many other Americans can proudly say that our highest elected official, our president, supports equal rights.  We can each say “Yes, that is my president, and I stand behind him.”

Would you really want to see someone like Mitt Romney in office instead of Obama?  Could you proudly say “That is my president”, knowing where he stands on these most important issues?

If we don’t want intolerance living in the White House, then we must each do our part to counteract the GOP hate machine, and to ensure that Obama remains president.  This election is too important for us not to get involved.

There are many ways that you can help.  The best thing that you can do is to keep the conversation going.  Talk to your friends and your relatives.  Tell them why you support Obama.  Let them know that someone they love and respect stands behind our president.  No number of campaign speeches or political ads can ever replace such powerful actions.

Additionally, you can also volunteer, donate money, or simply get out there and encourage people to vote.  It is shocking to see how few people cast a ballot during each election.  Merely convincing more people to exercise their Democratic right could mean the difference between a win and a loss.

Please spread this message as far and wide as you can.  Together, through the power of free speech and Democracy, we can make a difference.  The first step is to help spread the word.  Are you up to the challenge?

The Violence Against Women Act; Is the Wellbeing of Thousands of Women No More Than A Political “Cheap Shot”?

             The U.S. Senate passed a revised version of the Violence Against Women Act Thursday, April 26, commencing the latest stage of a Congressional battle between Democrats and Republicans that is sure to be a factor of this year’s election season.  Although Republicans have introduced their own versions of the bill, which are largely the same as the original, the Democrat’s version would expand protections to cover illegal immigrant, lesbian, transgender, and Native American women.  Although the Democrat’s version passed the Senate by 68 votes, 31 Republicans voted against it, and one Republican chose not to vote.  This impasse between the two parties is now expected to persist to the House, where this bill may have a rough time making it through.

Many Republicans have argued that the Democrat’s version is merely a political ploy, designed to feed the growing accusations of a war on women.  By putting in provisions that they know no Republican will vote for, Conservatives say that Democrats are trying to corner them into making a politically disastrous move.  This is part of the reason that Republicans proposed their own versions of the bill, so as to try and diffuse this effect.

            In the words of Rep. Kristi Noem: “Unfortunately in Congress, there are some who’d like to make this a political play. They’d like to make cheap shots and try to politicize it in an election year.”

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers also said that “House Republicans are committed to protecting the true victims of domestic violence and sexual assault.”

            However, the question must be asked as to why they would not want to protect these women too.  Are their lives and wellbeing less valuable, and is their pain any less real?  Do they not count as “true” victims?  Is their wellbeing no more than a political “cheap shot”?  Although there are other differences between the various versions of the bill, this seems to be the leading point of contention.

            I would like to think that there is a grand justification behind the opposition, yet it seems that some may be against this bill for no other reason than because it would help people that they do not like.  However, why should we discriminate?  If someone was hurt, and there is a program out there that could help them, who has the right to pick and choose which “kinds of people” are eligible?  It is disgusting enough that some people would think it morally permissible to deny service to a woman based on her sexual orientation, but so too is it wrong to suppose that we can deny care to Native Americans or illegal immigrants.  Either way, if an injustice has taken place on our soil, it is our job to avenge it, and to help those who have suffered.

            The same argument exists for medical care.  Some say that illegal immigrants should not be able to use our healthcare system.  Yet, would we as a nation be prepared to stand by and watch people die just because they don’t happen to be a legal citizen?  Would any of us be proud to say that we are a citizen of such a country?  Most likely, no.  We can proudly say that we live in a country where anyone, even if they are illegal or unable to pay, has the ability to enter an emergency room and receive care.  In this country, we don’t allow people to die on the hospital floor just because they don’t happen to meet some predetermined “criteria”.  We are better than that.

Extending the protections and services granted by the VAWA to all women, no matter their sexual orientation or legal status, will help thousands.  Also, in addition to the aid given to women who have been abused, resources would be used to fund investigations and ensure that there are fewer criminals on the street who are able to go on and hurt other women and, possibly, their children.  Overall, the more women that can be helped, the better our country will be.

It is time to look past hatred and to step around the roadblocks of partisan politics.  Some issues are too important for us to neglect them based on fringe political ideals.  Reform needs to happen, and this is but one example of a place where our government can make a difference in the lives of thousands, many of them already disadvantaged.

I would like to congratulate the fifteen Republican Senators who sided with Democrats on this most important issue.  Their ability to make the right decision, regardless of arbitrary party lines, is commendable.  Let us hope that more people will be able to do the same as this bill makes its way to the House.

Please take time to contact your local representative and tell them why you think they should vote to pass this bill.  Show them why you believe that America can, and should, protect all women from abuse.

Perhaps, together, we can work to make a difference.

U.S. International Aid: Misconceptions and Our Patriotic Duty

            While the importance of foreign aid cannot be understated, it seems that every time people talk of trimming the U.S. budget, such programs are one of the first things to be put on the table.  Yet, would this really be a wise choice?  How much money do we spend of foreign aid and what is the per-dollar impact versus other areas of government spending?  Some say that it is unwise to send money to other countries while our own people bear so many burdens, but is this opinion justified?  Ultimately, what is the answer?

            Whether one believes that we should increase or decrease foreign aid, recent public opinion surveys show that most Americans grossly overestimate the amount of money that our country sends overseas.  One poll shows that Americans estimate foreign aid to make up, on average, about 21 percent of the federal budget.  When asked what a suitable amount would be, the average reply was 10%.  Yet, when one looks at the actual amount of foreign aid that we give each year, this number is far below the estimated twenty one percent of our budget.  Surprisingly, it is even below the recommended ten percent level. [1]  So, one might ask, how much do we give to other countries?

            Although America is the greatest foreign aid donor in the world, that is only because we are such a large, rich country.  In reality, only about one and a half percent of our budget is devoted to international aid; far below most developed countries.  In 2010, out of every hundred dollars that each American made, only about 21 cents was given to international aid by the federal government, with a little less than a dime of private charity added on top.  Compared to countries like Norway, who’s government gave 110 cents per hundred dollars, we are woefully behind. [2]

            To put everything in perspective, it is estimated that Americans spend more money on sodas, or coffee, than on international aid.  In looking at these numbers, one has to wonder why the rhetoric to cut aid is so strong.  Yet, at the same time, when our economy is ailing and people are hurting, do we really have any business sending money overseas?

To answer this question, we must remember that Americans are not the only inhabitants of this planet.  We are all people here and we are not the only ones hurting.  Each of our lives is valuable, and we must not forget this.

U.S. aid money helps millions of people and likely saves thousands of lives.  From the Global HIV/AIDS Initiative, to funds to end famine, prevent malaria, provide basic education, build infrastructure, respond to humanitarian crises, provide credit to farmers and small businesses, and to promote environmental preservation, our money can go a long way.  At only one and a half percent of our national budget, to say that America ought to cut all foreign aid in the interest of saving money sounds, at the very least, quite selfish.  Where these resources can go to help millions abroad, their impact here would have an almost negligible effect on domestic wellbeing.  A dollar spent in America buys you a tea at McDonalds, but a dollar spent in some parts of Africa can feed a family for a day, or much more.  Which ultimately helped a human being the most?

            Naturally, a pragmatic approach needs to be taken when dispensing aid.  We all know that simply throwing money at a problem will rarely fix it.  However, this does not mean that we have to turn and give up.

            Ultimately, it comes down to the marginal benefit (benefit per each additional dollar given) of any given aid program.  In some areas, where aid is desperately needed, a dollar can go a very long way to help, producing far more benefit than the initial cost.  However, there are other areas, particularly in richer countries where much aid is already given, that each additional dollar may have only a very small benefit.  In this case, for every dollar spent, there might be, for example, only eighty cents worth of benefit.

Additionally, where excessive aid is given for too long, communities may become dependent on it, thus losing the ability to support themselves.  In some cases, giving too much food aid, for instance, can undermine the local agricultural economy, ultimately making a problem worse.

            Shown these difficulties, some might say that we should halt aid for fear that it may be wasted.  However, we can’t simply take a flamethrower and blindly burn programs.  The job before us, instead, is to evaluate our expenditures and to decide where money should best be given.  We can’t spend without caution, yet, we cannot turn our back to the rest of the world.

            America truly is a great nation and I am proud to be one of her citizens.  When a mother and her starving children receive food, medicine, and clothes; whose name and flag do they see?  What do they remember about the nation who gave them these things?

By giving aid to other countries, we are showing that we, as a nation, can go above and beyond.  We show the world that we can be leaders, and that we are a great people.  To me, it seems that few things could be more patriotic.

Yet, some say that we should take this away; that we should think only of ourselves and that we should show the world selfishness.  I am not one of those.  To say that we should discontinue this service to the world, that our nation is incapable of giving, or that we should shirk our moral responsibilities is, in my opinion, unpatriotic.  It is an insult to America.  I have more faith in our country than that and I know that we are capable.   This is the nation that can, not the nation that could, but which chooses not to.

America is too great a nation for some to say that we should turn away.

[1] Miller, Talea, and Larisa, Epatko. Foreign Aid Facing Proposed Cuts and a Public Perception Problem. PBS Newshour. Mar. 10, 2011.  Web.

[2] Breen, John. International Aid – A solution. Poverty.com. 2011. Web.